Light pierces darkness and truth trumps lies. If this were not so, Fox News would be ignored by liberals, not feared and fought against. Liberals do not hate Fox because Fox is biased. Liberals hate Fox because Fox reports news that other media sources would like to ignore.

Do you read comment sections on news stories across the web? If so, it doesn’t take long to realize that the far left have a deep hatred for Fox News and would love to see them off the air.

This has always been a bit of a mystery to me. MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and often CNN present a left leaning bias on a regular basis. The media in general are pro-Obama and often appear to be a part of his re-election campaign. On the net, Obama has sixty popular sites that do his bidding.

So why does Fox News disturb so many liberals and stimulate such vicious attacks from them?

I believe that the answer is this. Many liberals (especially politicians and those who profit from politicians) do not want a conservative voice allowed anywhere. Many do not want dialogue and they do not want freedom of expression. They want one view and one side given to the public – the liberal view. Liberals fear the general public hearing what conservatives have to say because when people hear unbiased news and reasons why conservatives love capitalism and our constitution, people gain new understanding and often reject the agenda they were taught in government schools. Many will no longer buy into the “take wealth from the rich, give it to the government and Uncle Sam will take care of everyone” argument after hearing statistics and being presented with factual information.

Fox is accused of being the most biased news agency. The truth is that Fox News is the only major news agency that presents both sides. Fox has liberal voices on a regular basis, but there are always conservative voices. That is what sets Fox apart from the others. Fox also reports news that would go unreported in a liberally biased media. This is why Fox is the most popular news agency in the country and this is why it is feared and hated by many.

Imagine an America, or any country, where over 1/2 the people have no voice. When Fox is shut down or taken over, that is basically what we will have in the USA. Even if we still have radio programs like Limbaugh, without a news agency to actually get reporters into the field, much information will never get to the people.

16 Responses to The real reason those on the left hate Fox News

As a rationalist and former member of the (American) “Left”, I don’t care much for Fox News, MSNBC or the recent innovations in “news” that have created a market for their sort of politicking dressed up as journalism.

It is true that when one candidate takes another’s words, quotes them out of context, and attempts to distort their meaning (which happens all the time in politics), news organizations often help the effort along by running stories along the lines of “Candidate A attacks Candidate B for X remarks”. But that isn’t “reporting news” in the traditional sense.

News organizations like Fox and MSNBC often take it a step further and “report” stories that assist in the attack – perhaps by repeating the selective quotation originally made by the campaign (“Candidate B says Y!”). That sort of effort especially isn’t what we mean when we say “news reporting”. Of course, Candidate B’s supporters will always cry foul and attack the news organization that is siding with Candidate A. And of course Candidate A’s supporters will glorify the news organization that sides with Candidate A. That’s the nature of color politics.

It should be obvious to any observer why the left hates Fox News and the right hates MSNBC. Why the heck wouldn’t they?

Did you mean this comment to go on the post about Fox News? Tell me this; Where would one go to hear and view coverage without a liberal bias if there was no Fox News? Should we not have a news coverage that is willing to give both sides in a free society? Should conservatives be silenced???

Besides that, I do see a difference in Fox and MSNBC. MSNBC makes no effort to present both sides as Fox does. They leave out stories that Fox covers. Fox has liberal commentators such as Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Pat Caddell, and Kirsten Powers to name a few. I know MSNBC choose to say they are like Fox, but the truth is there isn’t another Fox on the air. That is why Fox is number one. Fox always has all the news and will allow opposing opinions to be heard and while they do have more commentators who lean right than left, that gives some balance when NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN all lean left.

There is a difference between Fox and MSNBC. Partisans of either side clearly see that difference. You see it as you expressed it. Partisans on the other side would (motly rightly) see the commentators you list as “liberal” as window dressing, and less more conservatives than the American liberal voting block. They would also (mostly rightly) see Fox’s “effort to present both sides” as a joke… presenting the conservative side with the skill of a master propagandist, and presenting the liberal side as weakly as possible in hopes that someone how heard “both sides” from Fox News would “decide for themselves” that the conservative side makes more sense.

There is a difference – but the difference is not that one is an exemplary journalistic organization and the other is engaged in partisan hackery. They are both engaged in partisan hackery. The difference is which side they are partisan hacks for.

Perhaps the biggest point of foolishness is that the idea of “both sides” – that is that the world could divide neatly into rightist or leftist – is itself a deception put upon us by the American two-party system and their lapdogs in the media.

It is amazing to me that if a news item strays within the event horizon of a political point of view that Americans completely lose the ability to consider the event or issue on its own merits and are blind to all but the aspects of it that conform or be made to conform to one of the two partisan narratives being pushed by the two governing parties.

Again, I ask where one would hear any conservative point of view without Fox News? It wouldn’t happen and this is the real reason that they are hated by the left. A careful examination of all news media provides a much different picture than the picture those on the left have painted. I never know if those who repeat the propaganda really believe what they are saying or if they are deceived.

A close examination will show that NBC has on more than one occasion edited video of Mitt Romney in an attempt to present him as something he is not. They are owners of MSNBC so I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.

One way to determine if what you think is really how things are is to check each source with the same criteria:

Do they hold some people to one standard while using a different standard for other groups?

Do they invite the opposing opinion to come on the air and express their view and/or tell their listeners when that invitation was declined?

Are you hearing obviously biased reporting? Most people can tell when and if they are hearing only one side and you have to be willing to hear both sides even if you don’t like hearing the other view. Is this possible on the news you are viewing?

Do you regularly find a media source leaving out critical information that is being reported elsewhere?

Do the journalists only challenge those with whom they disagree?

Is context provided?

There is one place that checks for this sort of thing. It is true they were established because the media became so liberal that there were no conservative voices until Fox came along.
Media Research Center

Again, I ask, should the only media that presents a conservative view alongside the liberal be silenced? I remember when there was no conservative voice and if they are silenced, there will be a void. Democrats accuse big money of having power, but big money does not control media.

Again, I ask where one would hear any conservative point of view without Fox News? It wouldn’t happen and this is the real reason that they are hated by the left.

Maybe so… but I don’t care why the left dislikes Fox News. I care whether they are good journalists… and they are not. And that is probably in large part because their reason for existence is not to report news, but to let people hear conservative points of view.

In fairness – before Fox News, the style of conservatism we see in the U.S. today wasn’t really part of the national discourse. At least not to the extent it is today. Radio comedians began to open to introduce the modern strain to a larger audience in the ’80s, but even that audience remained relatively small until Fox entered the 24 hour cable news market. It wasn’t that there was no conservative point of view in the news before (remember Crossfire? Remember William Buckley, William Safire, Rich Lowry, and all the rest?)

It was just that peculiar mix of culture warrior, anti-intellectual, Randian Libertarian, and ultra-war hawk with a firebrand adversarial temperament that is today’s conservative hadn’t really come into vogue in the national media yet.

Those who belonged to that category did call foul that they weren’t represented among the most popular news sources. Was it because of bias against that form of conservatism? Or because the market didn’t yet support it? Or because the news was dominated by educated journalists who favored more thoughtful forms of politics regardless of left-right orientation? I don’t know. Alll of these answers are endorsed by some group or another, and there isn’t much room to tell.

The upshot is that now that Fox has captured this demographic, there isn’t much breathing space for other news organizations to operate within that mindset. Some – like CNN or the Washington Post seem to be vying for the viewer who wants objectivity in news. Others – like MSNBC – are trying to carve out a position with viewers from the modern left who will flock to an echo chamber of their very own.

Sadly, there is still lacking the element of reason in News – more so from the niche operators like Fox and MSNBC than from the others… but there is a general lack. And that element of reason could cure a thousand ills.

The Media Research Center says that Fox is fair, and paints a nice picture of it. Of course they do. They’re in the same business. I don’t expect you to take Media Matters seriously, and you shouldn’t expect anyone except a devotee of the hard right to take the Media Research Center seriously.

Some of the questions you suggest we ask about news organizations are good ones to ask, if one is concerned with bias. Of those that are good ones to ask, a non-partisan asking them fairly will come to the conclusion that Fox and MSNBC are the most partisan and the least accurate of major news outlets.

How many hours a week do you spend watching Fox New? CNN? MSNBC? NBC? CBS? ABC? If we agree on how to detect bias, and we both watch and listen, we should be able to agree on which networks present both sides of stories and which present all aspects of the news without censorship of stories they find unflattering to their “cause”.

The second “fact-check” that I read on Politfact.com was in fact their opinion. The site is owned by Tampa Bay Times. The selection of “facts” that they check is also pretty telling as to what they are about.

As for the other, I have seen some good reporting there. What they choose to ‘check’ will tell you what they are about as well. I will look more into that when I have time. I also would like to point out something that needs to be said. When writing this blog, I mentioned that Fox news reported what Obama said that other networks did not report:

Example: When Barack Obama said, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.“, most major news outlets waited, some up to four days, to report this. Fox reported it the day it happened. One has to wonder if it would have been reported at all without Fox News.

I haven’t seen the Romney ads, but Fox News gives the entire context of what Obama said (I did not) and they have shown the entire clip time after time. The conservative disagreement with Obama over this statement isn’t as superficial as many are making it out to be. It is a position that needs to be voiced and our youth need to understand. While successful people acknowledge that help has been available from others, the problem with Obama’s illustration is that he stated that government enabled the entrepreneur. He says roads and other things created by tax-payer dollars are responsible for successful business enterprises. Fox News has given conservatives a voice that can be heard as well as the liberal argument. It is the only place I have heard the conservative view voiced.

Conservatives say that the government functions with tax-payer dollars; therefore those who pay taxes must first generate income. To say that government enables private citizens to be successful is opposite of what actually happened in the building of this country. Our forefathers came here and worked to build a society where their descendants could be free to build and govern themselves and where they could do this without repression from government. It was by throwing off the shackles of a repressive, overtaxing government that our forefathers were able to form a union and eventually a government that allows personal achievement and hard work to thrive. Private initiative enables a society to govern well when citizens are free. It is a basic philosophical difference. Fox allows the philosophy to be voiced.

Those on the left, and sadly that includes you, through prejudice, and an unwillingness to find out first-hand, will continue to attempt to shut-down that outlet. May God have mercy on us when all opposing voices are silenced.

Thankfully, it doesn’t. Over the course of the last approximately four years, I have abandoned the American political left, in favor of rationalism. Once you get outside the political echo chambers you wonder how you ever could have been so gullible while you were still inside one of them.

I remember feeling this way when people dared to criticize my favorite “liberal voices”. But of course, criticism isn’t the same thing as “silencing”. It is very natural in color politics for the sides to criticize one another vigorously. You can’t have a Fox News without Fox News criticism – including both fair and unfair criticism.

Don’t panic… as much as it hurts to hear criticism of a beloved political organ, criticism is itself protected free speech, and the first amendment is as strong as ever. Fox still makes billions by putting out their political viewpoint, and there is basically no danger that they will go silent as long as there are consumers hungry for an outlet that reinforces those particular viewpoints.

Those who pay attention want to know the truth. Educated people want opposing views allowed and even are willing to listen to others,however, sometimes a society stops paying attention. Many do not look up facts in tomes of literature and hours of research like you and I might do. I do not mind criticism of Fox. What I object to is the executive branch of our government involving itself in a campaign against a news agency because political views that are different than the one held by the ruling party are allowed by that agency. It, of course, is not presidential but it should concern everyone for other reasons.Even those who think the first amendment is still strong should consider the consequences of such behavior. Unfair criticism is frustrating, but one can consider the sources on that. It is another thing entirely when the government goes after media. We know that historically free press is the first thing to go in a totalitarian regime. When a president criticizes media that allows opposing views with comments such as the ones made by Obama, this will serve to fuel the fires of intolerance. When those fires begin to burn out of control, talk of censorship begins to gain a foothold.

If by “goes after”, you mean the government uses its unique powers to censor, manipulate, or otherwise undermine the media, then yes – that really is another thing entirely.

If by “goes after”, you mean the President publicly criticizes the media, then that really isn’t all that different. That is still …, well… just criticism. It may or may not be the right thing to do. It may undermine the image that many presidents want to cultivate of being “above the fray”. But it is isn’t any more sinister than criticizing the opposing political party.

I actually agree with you that, even when dealing with a multi-billion dollar arm of an outsized multi-national media empire, it isn’t really appropriate for the “most powerful person in the world” to take them on in a fight.

But, if the worst thing Obama did was criticize Fox News, then I would sleep a lot better at night. This sort of thing pales in comparison to a U.S. president assassinating his own citizens.

Where I have a real difference with you is this reason you give that a political organization should be in the “news” business:

Those who pay attention want to know the truth. Educated people want opposing views allowed and even are willing to listen to others

In itself that’s a laudable sentiment – one that I agree with, as far as it goes.

However, it is often used as a kind of a vaccine against rational consideration. Too many people “listen” to the barest minimum of the viewpoints they disagree with, and pride themselves on their rationality and education, Then they go on to devise their “own” opinions, lacking even the most superficial understanding of the single opposing argument most in fashion at the moment, much less the full spectrum of possible viewpoints on an issue. I used to do that, myself. It is the hallmark of the lightly educated partisan in a bipolar electorate.

Some news organizations capitalize on this self-destructive pattern of self-inoculation by providing a few voices in their line-up that present the “other side” as feebly as possible. Shame on them.

“Listening to both sides” is at best only a baby step toward critical thinking, and if done in a way that undermines deep understanding, it is a bigger step backward than it is a step forward. If you half-heartedly listen to a half-hearted defense of an opposing idea and then return your full attention to your favorites, having gone through the motions of “listening to both sides” and with renewed confidence that you are double-super-right, then you haven’t helped yourself find the truth. You have only helped yourself feel confident about what you already believed. If doing so gives you false confidence in your viewpoint, then it has hindered your search for a deeper understanding. That isn’t a good thing.

I want to return to and expand on the point about the full spectrum of possible viewpoints on an issue. In a bipolar political climate, there are two sides that suck all the oxygen out of the room. However, there is no mechanism for making sure that either of those sides is even marginally worth the bulk of consideration.

We live in a metaphorical world where half of the American people think the moon is made of green cheese, and the other half think it is made of fairy dust. No amount of “listening to both sides” will help these people.

Occasionally, a small coalition forms to suggest that the moon is made of something else – perhaps “fairy cheese”, if they fancy themselves centrists… perhaps “An Idealized Moon Substance”, if they fancy themselves intelligent… perhaps even (!) “something similar to what the earth is made of, maybe”. If such coalitions could thrive and gain some political voice, eventually, the voice that has something resembling the right answer might win out. There are, after all, some advantages to being right.

But, when such movements occur, they never get very far. In the next election cycle, the green cheese advocates who might flirt with such a coalition are starkly reminded that to vote for a “fairy cheeser” instead of a “green cheeser” will enable the evil “fairy dusters” to take power and teach the innocent children their heretical nonsense. The Fairy Dust advocates are reminded that a vote for an Idealized Moon Substance candidate is a vote for the wicked Green Cheesers, and will enable them to swoop into power and allow America’s enemies to take destroy our way of life.

The result is Green Cheese 46%, Fairy Dust, 41%, Idealized Moon Substance 6%, and stuff kind of like the earth 3% (with the remainder being write-ins).

After the election, the media and governmental power structures safely ignore all points of view, except the two that are fashionable in the political parties. The result is that no one is a voice for the tiny minority who care about the truth enough to do things like learning how to learn, and letting reality be the judge.

Listening to “both sides” doesn’t seem nearly as helpful when the result of it is to never consider the truth of the question.

When I hear a partisan proudly say that they believe everyone should hear both sides, I am always reminded of this statement from the Twelve Virtues of Rationality:

If you fail to achieve a correct answer, it is futile to protest that you acted with propriety.

My problem with Fox News and others like it is that they are at best unhelpful in the effort to achieve the correct answer – and at worst, they are a substantial hindrance.

News organizations have the power to really help people understand the world they live in, and what is going on in it. If their goal was not “balance”, but instead was “the truth”, then they might have hope of being helpful to someone.

If their goal was not good ratings to bring in advertising dollars but was investigating and reporting real events, then they might have a hope of achieving something.

Heck, if the American appetite was for deeper understanding, instead of “infotainment” carefully presented so it will reinforce their favorite political commitments, then news organizations working only for profit might even have a financial incentive to create a product that contributes to deeper understanding.

All that said, America’s news media – as flawed as it is – still does some good, in some limited ways. It beats the pants off of “news organizations” that are controlled by an authoritarian state. Members of the American media don’t deserve to be lavished with unconditional praise just because they tell the story the way I like to hear it, or because they make a show of “presenting both sides”, or because they present a viewpoint that is otherwise unpopular in the media.

They deserve a lot more criticism than they get from just their partisan haters.

But they do deserve some very specific praise when they do manage to tell a story in a way that contributes to a better understanding of the world.

Knowing that I and many others were conservative long before Fox News and knowing that conservatism and Constitutionalism isn’t being taught in public schools changes the way I look at media bias and it also changes how I feel about listening to the critics. In theory I agree with your statement that:

It beats the pants off of “news organizations” that are controlled by an authoritarian state. Members of the American media don’t deserve to be lavished with unconditional praise just because they tell the story the way I like to hear it, or because they make a show of “presenting both sides”

However, when the mainstream media took on a liberal agenda and began to espouse their ’cause’ some years ago, there arose a need for balance if there was not to be a news organization that presents intellectually honest reporting – hence the rise of Fox News. They are fair (more than can be said for the others) & balanced (in a world where many have gone off the deep end for a political cause) and for that I am thankful. Did this give rise to super unbalanced and unfair journalism such as MSNBC? It did. Still, I do not wish do shut them down and I will take that any day over the alternative.

I don’t want to shut them down either. I do want to help more people get smarter and smarter, until the news organizations have to change their business model because no one is satisfied with partisan journalism any longer.

This was a good post. The truth is that Fox News does have Alan Colmes, a very left-wing NY guy. It also presents Bob Beckel, who is somewhat interesting. I don’t believe that CNN or MSNBC have conservative voices on their channel. If you want to know something interesting, then read on the internet news about how a French actor, Gerard Depardieu, had to flee France because the Socialist President, Francois Hollande, wants a 75 percent tax on the wealthy.

I also wanted to tell you that Socialism is basically a French idea, founded by Napolean Bonaparte. It’s no joke. America was successful in the past because it had a lower tax rate on business, which led to such great inventions at the phone, the car, the airplane, the radio, and many others. America experienced tremendous growth during certain periods, including the Republican 20’s and the Eisenhower ’50’s. The Democrats became more radicalized during the ’60’s because of the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War. That’s what the “Progressives” want. More gov’t …